4 ms·

Medical practitioners aren't on a platonic quest for truth when they make diagnoses. They're generally trying to separate out those who would benefit from treat

Medical practitioners aren't on a platonic quest for truth when they make diagnoses. They're generally trying to separate out those who would benefit from treatment. Physical tests aren't often that useful for mental conditions, so official diagnostic criteria often has a section about how the observed traits and behaviors cause problems for the patient at home, in school, or at work. Furthermore, people simply don't seek diagnosis and care unless they're having problems that are severe enough. One example is Bill Gross, the "bond king", who figured out that he had Aspergers in his 70s. If someone is adjusted enough to their social niche, why would they seek a mental health diagnosis?

mieseratte 7y ago
Thank you for that clarification, that is my rough understanding of mental health having been sent to a whole mess of shrinks. I guess what my ultimate misunderstanding is: > One complicating factor that I put into every thread about random things being associated with autism How is that a complicating factor in discovering causes themselves? If someone has the Foo and Bar factors that cause autism, but has otherwise been able to work around it they are still "autistic" but just at a subclinical (is that the right phrase?) level. I guess I'm having some (pedantic?) misunderstanding around autism as a diagnosis vs. a disease you have.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  Subclinical is the right word for that, yeah. >How is that a complicating factor in discovering causes themselves? The study links the factor under study to autism diagnosis, rather than some hypothetical "true" rate of autism that includes undiagnosed and subclinical cases. Ten IQ points can be the difference between otherwise-identical autistics barely passing a class versus failing it and getting referred to a psychologist. Or after getting referred, the difference between qualifying for a diagnosis or not. The latter actually happened to me personally in elementary school: I had held my pen funny in a way that made my hand hurt after a while, and my teacher referred me for refusing to complete a handwritten class assignment. They did a test on various types of school subjects, and I ranked a bit above grade level in some and far above grade level on others. If I was a grade lower in each subject and thus had below grade level scores, I'd've gotten an official diagnosis of some kind of subject-specific learning disability. But instead, there wasn't enough of a problem to need to do stuff, and doing stuff costs money, so they basically shrugged their shoulders and sent me on my way.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  In the case of something like autism, the presentation of symptoms is massively complicated by the amount of support and therapy/'training' a person has had. In a population where everyone had equal levels of Foo and Bar, but a widely varying level of therapy, they would show widely varying levels of 'autism' in their diagnosis - and this would complicate any attempt to study the relationship of Foo+Bar<->autism.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Should have said: that is in an imaginary scenario where foo+bar really does cause autism

mieseratte 7y ago

Thank you for that clarification, that is my rough understanding of mental health having been sent to a whole mess of shrinks. I guess what my ultimate misunderstanding is: > One complicating factor that I put into every thread about random things being associated with autism How is that a complicating factor in discovering causes themselves? If someone has the Foo and Bar factors that cause autism, but has otherwise been able to work around it they are still "autistic" but just at a subclinical (is that the right phrase?) level. I guess I'm having some (pedantic?) misunderstanding around autism as a diagnosis vs. a disease you have.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
Subclinical is the right word for that, yeah. >How is that a complicating factor in discovering causes themselves? The study links the factor under study to autism diagnosis, rather than some hypothetical "true" rate of autism that includes undiagnosed and subclinical cases. Ten IQ points can be the difference between otherwise-identical autistics barely passing a class versus failing it and getting referred to a psychologist. Or after getting referred, the difference between qualifying for a diagnosis or not. The latter actually happened to me personally in elementary school: I had held my pen funny in a way that made my hand hurt after a while, and my teacher referred me for refusing to complete a handwritten class assignment. They did a test on various types of school subjects, and I ranked a bit above grade level in some and far above grade level on others. If I was a grade lower in each subject and thus had below grade level scores, I'd've gotten an official diagnosis of some kind of subject-specific learning disability. But instead, there wasn't enough of a problem to need to do stuff, and doing stuff costs money, so they basically shrugged their shoulders and sent me on my way.
lazyasciiart 7y ago
In the case of something like autism, the presentation of symptoms is massively complicated by the amount of support and therapy/'training' a person has had. In a population where everyone had equal levels of Foo and Bar, but a widely varying level of therapy, they would show widely varying levels of 'autism' in their diagnosis - and this would complicate any attempt to study the relationship of Foo+Bar<->autism.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Should have said: that is in an imaginary scenario where foo+bar really does cause autism